HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-17-2012, 12:31 AM
  #751
LadyJet26
Lest We Forget
 
LadyJet26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,225
vCash: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
Insert badass music here:
Insert ******* music. I still hate them. And I'll still be 100% behind the players if they decide this isn't what they want. They're trying to fix the league as a whole. If people listen to what the players have to say, it isn't about their money, it's about keeping all teams financially stable and this includes having the rich ass female dogs... errr owners fork over more of their revenue to help out those with less revenue.

LadyJet26 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:33 AM
  #752
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
Insert ******* music. I still hate them. And I'll still be 100% behind the players if they decide this isn't what they want. They're trying to fix the league as a whole. If people listen to what the players have to say, it isn't about their money, it's about keeping all teams financially stable and this includes having the rich ass female dogs... errr owners fork over more of their revenue to help out those with less revenue.
Tell me how better sharing of a much smaller pie is about the players trying to fix the league...
The players so far have only asked for raises.

garret9 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:45 AM
  #753
SCP Guy
Registered User
 
SCP Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Peg
Country: Portugal
Posts: 2,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diatidialga View Post
Damn Bettman looks tired
He stayed up all night counting his money

P.S. Go Owners Go

SCP Guy is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:50 AM
  #754
LadyJet26
Lest We Forget
 
LadyJet26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,225
vCash: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
Tell me how better sharing of a much smaller pie is about the players trying to fix the league...
The players so far have only asked for raises.
How were they asking for raises? They were willing to give up HRR but not a ROLLBACK in salary. How is that asking for raises?

It's not the players faults that these teams are paying them retarded amounts of money. If they can't afford to pay them then they shouldn't own a ****ing team. End of story. I have no sympathy whatsoever for a bunch of greedy ass owners whom most don't give a rats ass about hockey or even know anything about hockey. The only owners I respect are TSNE because they were fans and are committed to their city.

LadyJet26 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:03 AM
  #755
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
The Eternal Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
How were they asking for raises? They were willing to give up HRR but not a ROLLBACK in salary. How is that asking for raises?

It's not the players faults that these teams are paying them retarded amounts of money. If they can't afford to pay them then they shouldn't own a ****ing team. End of story. I have no sympathy whatsoever for a bunch of greedy ass owners whom most don't give a rats ass about hockey or even know anything about hockey. The only owners I respect are TSNE because they were fans and are committed to their city.
The only offer from the PA guaranteed raises in it. 2%, 4%, 6% IIRC.

They did not give up HRR, they gave up some of their percentages once the league a certain level, the level of which was based on their completely unrealistic predictions for growth.

Actually, the last CBA FORCED the owners to spend. It was called a floor. So in effect, yes the players DID force the owners to spend by forcing the floor into the CBA (one of the concessions gained by the PA in the last agreement).

This is much more complex than you are making it. Owners do not own these teams to make money year in, year out. Most of them DO own the teams since they love hockey. They want a workable business model, as do the PA. We are getting closer to that.

BTW, this latest offer has expanded (somewhat) the revenue sharing program, from what I have been seeing. Not as much as the PA in their original offer, but really they were not that far apart in the first place, not like the PA was saying. I cannot confirm, but the numbers I have seen in the main thread was current level is 190M, PA had 240M in their offer, NHL has 200M in this offer. Not all that far apart.

Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:15 AM
  #756
LadyJet26
Lest We Forget
 
LadyJet26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,225
vCash: 593
I still don't like the owners.

The players are the only reasons why they have teams to own in the first place. I was against the players last time. I'm 100% with them this time. They deserve every penny they get for what they put their bodies through day in day out and what kind of toll it takes on their family life. There needs to be more parity in the NHL, but my opinion is to get rid of a bunch of teams that I think are useless which neither the NHL nor NHLPA would agree with me on.

LadyJet26 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:15 AM
  #757
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 3,743
vCash: 500
CBC article:

Other components of this deal include:

Players would be eligible for unrestricted free agency at age 28 or eight years of service. In the past CBA, a player was eligible to become a UFA at 27 or seven years of service.

Contract lengths were capped at five years.

Revenue sharing among the 30 teams was increased to $200-million from $150-million.

Owners want one-way contracts buried in AHL to count against NHL salary cap, something they tried but could not get in last CBA.

Entry-level contracts would be reduced to two seasons from three.

The NHL has not liked the way term and average salaries have increased in recent seasons in a player's second contract.

A two-year entry level contract and five-year cap on the lengths of deals would allow teams to hang on to players through three contracts before they hit unrestricted free agency.



Interesting too, that having only a 2-yr entry level contract would likely mean most young players coming off their ELC may not have established themselves as much as they might with 3 yrs experience. Alex Burmistrov after two years might have very different contract demands of an Alex Burmistrov after three years (if this 3 and final ELC yr is a 'break-out' year).

Interesting to see what the players think of the offer.

Bob E is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:36 AM
  #758
wpgsilver
HFBoards Sponsor
 
wpgsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,394
vCash: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
I still don't like the owners.

The players are the only reasons why they have teams to own in the first place. I was against the players last time. I'm 100% with them this time. They deserve every penny they get for what they put their bodies through day in day out and what kind of toll it takes on their family life. There needs to be more parity in the NHL, but my opinion is to get rid of a bunch of teams that I think are useless which neither the NHL nor NHLPA would agree with me on.
The owners are the only reason these players play hockey for money. No owners= no hockey. It's a business not a charity. Both are required.

The owners deserve every penny they get because they are investing millions and millions of dollars they could potentially lose. Players after signing a deal are guaranteed to make money. Owners don't have that luxury.

wpgsilver is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:52 AM
  #759
scelaton
Registered User
 
scelaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
How were they asking for raises? They were willing to give up HRR but not a ROLLBACK in salary. How is that asking for raises?

It's not the players faults that these teams are paying them retarded amounts of money. If they can't afford to pay them then they shouldn't own a ****ing team. End of story. I have no sympathy whatsoever for a bunch of greedy ass owners whom most don't give a rats ass about hockey or even know anything about hockey. The only owners I respect are TSNE because they were fans and are committed to their city.
It amazes me that so many people still see this as a battle of the superheros (players) vs the forces of evil (owners), like it was some kind of comic book series. I just watched a few minutes of Michael Landsberg's OTR, where he interviewed a player named Paul Bissonnette. Bissonnette has played 4 seasons in the NHL, has accumulated a grand total of 8 points, 250 penally minutes and has made millions of dollars. Judging from the interview, he is also not exactly a shining example of virtue. The owners don't need a bunch of entitled hockey players to save them from their greed.

Back in the real world, Bettman called this the owners' best offer and i believe him. I doubt they will make any more material concessions and, no doubt, have a number of alternate scenarios planned out. If Fehr continues to brainwash the gullible PA, making them think they are in a fantasy world, fighting bad guys, this could still end badly for them. It'll certainly go down to the wire this time around.

scelaton is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 06:52 AM
  #760
King Woodballs
MVP! MVP! MVP!
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 32,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
I still don't like the owners.

The players are the only reasons why they have teams to own in the first place. I was against the players last time. I'm 100% with them this time. They deserve every penny they get for what they put their bodies through day in day out and what kind of toll it takes on their family life. There needs to be more parity in the NHL, but my opinion is to get rid of a bunch of teams that I think are useless which neither the NHL nor NHLPA would agree with me on.
I am sorry, but I have to disagree.
The league needs the owners allot more then the players.

There are literally thousands of players that could play in the NHL.
There are not that many owners, or people that could be/or want to be owners.

The owners have all the expenses and take all the risk of a failing franchise.

The players are lucky to be getting 50%.

King Woodballs is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:11 AM
  #761
s1g
Registered User
 
s1g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 332
vCash: 500
Do you guys root for the house to win during blackjack? Owners aren't some schmucks who are getting taken for a ride by a bunch of jocks. Some of you make it sound like these owners are victims. That's so precious.

s1g is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:48 AM
  #762
SensibleGuy
Registered User
 
SensibleGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,074
vCash: 500
Ummm, no. What we're saying is neither side is the "good guy" or the "bad guy." Both sides have their own interests to look out for and the owners are no more "evil" than the players. Anyone that wants to try and argue that the players are 100% right is really being silly...

also, the point constantly made that the league "doesn't exist without the players" is a pretty specious one. I mean obviously on one level its true, but it really undervalues the enormous commitment and challenges that the owners undertake when they choose to operate a franchise. The league doesn't exist without somebody being willing to commit those huge dollars and to deal with all the crap that is involved with running an operation either.

Once the CBA is done, then the owners are going to go out and do whatever it takes - whatever they can get away with under the terms of the agreement - to better their own franchise. They'd be idiots to do otherwise and to expect anything else is naive in the extreme. The CBA negotiation is when they get to decide how they want to operate as a group. Outside of that its called collusion and its illegal...


Last edited by SensibleGuy: 10-17-2012 at 10:12 AM.
SensibleGuy is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:10 AM
  #763
Wonko the Sane
It's you not me.
 
Wonko the Sane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Outside the Asylum
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,908
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksnWpg View Post
I still don't like the owners.

The players are the only reasons why they have teams to own in the first place. I was against the players last time. I'm 100% with them this time. They deserve every penny they get for what they put their bodies through day in day out and what kind of toll it takes on their family life. There needs to be more parity in the NHL, but my opinion is to get rid of a bunch of teams that I think are useless which neither the NHL nor NHLPA would agree with me on.
Player costs are the root cause of why the NHL left Winnipeg in the 90's. After the player strike there was one team govenor that voted against the deal due to a lack of control of player costs, that was Barry Shenkarow. He stated at the time that the deal was bad of the league and the small market teams. After the deal WPG, QC, Hartford all moved, and that terrible deal lead directly to the lockout in the 2000's. Player costs are the single largest driver of ticket prices, without control on this cost the same fate will befall the current incarnation of the Jets.

But, hey, feel free to advocate solely for the underdog millionaires. We're not talking Winnipeg General Strike conditions the players are railing against, it's strictly first world problems here (and the top 0.01% of the first world to top it off).


Last edited by Wonko the Sane: 10-17-2012 at 10:20 AM.
Wonko the Sane is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:28 AM
  #764
GrandChelems
Registered User
 
GrandChelems's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s1g View Post
Do you guys root for the house to win during blackjack? Owners aren't some schmucks who are getting taken for a ride by a bunch of jocks. Some of you make it sound like these owners are victims. That's so precious.
Ironic and "precious" statement, considering the players are the house with guaranteed money while 90% of the owners are taking a gamble at making their teams work while sucking up the losses.

That is, unless the players are also willing to stump up 50% of the losses when their team incurs them? Because most teams will.

GrandChelems is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:07 AM
  #765
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandChelems View Post
Ironic and "precious" statement, considering the players are the house with guaranteed money while 90% of the owners are taking a gamble at making their teams work while sucking up the losses.

That is, unless the players are also willing to stump up 50% of the losses when their team incurs them? Because most teams will.
bazinga!

I get that the players are a lot easier to "like", but i'm shocked by the amount of the support they still garner.


IMO NHL has just won the PR war carte blanche with this deal. The guys on TSN 1290 were saying it this morning and i believe them 100%, if the NHLPA rejects this offer, they're toast.

By making this offer public (which i disagree with but see the point) the NHL has removed Fehrs usual tactic of "Oh it sounds good based on the little information you guys are getting but we looked at it, and trust me, its' bad bad bad."

I fully belive that if the NHLPA doesn't comeback with this as the basis for their negotiation, then the seasons lost, and anyone that wants to blame the owners is welcome to do so but your essentially saying 50-50 isn't fair. If anything it's one sided to the players.

Yes the owners need rules to constrict themselves, just like players need rules to protect themselves from headshots. Big money contractsare to the owners the exact same thing as head shots were to players, it was a legal move that was detrimental to the game and thus had to be corrected.

how can people not see that the GM/owners are playing a game, a game that needs rules to govern it just the same as the game on the ice, and they will do everything within those rules to win, just like i would hope any respectable team serious about winning would on the ice?

thats the reason for the reduced cap. they've come up witha 50-50 number, that gaurauntees current contracts are paid in full. Does anyone honestly believe the players deserve more?

Grind is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:09 AM
  #766
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s1g View Post
Do you guys root for the house to win during blackjack? Owners aren't some schmucks who are getting taken for a ride by a bunch of jocks. Some of you make it sound like these owners are victims. That's so precious.
If Ron Hainsey was at the table, I'd be rooting for the house to win, yes.

Gm0ney is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:17 AM
  #767
Hammer Slammer
Moderator
 
Hammer Slammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,835
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Hammer Slammer
I guess Fehr didn't care for the offer. Surprise.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=407542

__________________
Hammer Slammer is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:20 AM
  #768
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,179
vCash: 500
:'(


that makes me a sad panda.... but i can't read the article... any coles notes?

Grind is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:26 AM
  #769
Sir Erdinger
Registered User
 
Sir Erdinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
:'(


that makes me a sad panda.... but i can't read the article... any coles notes?


In the letter, which breaks down a summary of the NHL offer, Fehr writes the following:

- "Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"

- "The proposal does represent movement from their last negotiating position, but still represents very large, immediate and continuing concessions by players to owners, in salary and benefits (the Players' Share) and in individual player contracting rules."

On some of the specific aspects of the NHL proposal:

- "They want to "clarify" HRR definition and rules. It is not immediately clear what this means, but so far all of their ideas in this regard have had the effect of reducing HRR, and thereby lowering salaries."

- "The Players' Share is reduced to 50 per cent from 57 per cent immediately -- this season. This is a reduction in the share of 12.3 per cent. On last year's revenue numbers, this would mean that players' salaries would be cut by about $231 million."

- "The proposal includes a "Make Whole" provision, to compensate players for the anticipated reduction in absolute dollars from last year (2011-12), to this year and next year. However, it would work like this. The Players Share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "Make Whole" payment would be made. It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."

- "Finally, they also proposed that the players could appeal supplemental or commissioner discipline to a neutral arbitration, on a "clearly erroneous" standard, which, as a practical manner, makes it very unlikely that any decision would be overturned."


Sad panda indeed.

Sir Erdinger is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:27 AM
  #770
wpgsilver
HFBoards Sponsor
 
wpgsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,394
vCash: 100
I've supported the owners for a while, but I'm starting to actually dislike the players union. I just don't see any urgency in their approach. I'm tired of their PR games rather than negotiations. For instance, I love Andrew Ladd as a player and as a leader but when he talks about the CBA I cringe. The players just have been unreasonable throughout this entire process and I'm tired of it.

wpgsilver is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:29 AM
  #771
Hank Chinaski
Mod Supervisor
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
:'(


that makes me a sad panda.... but i can't read the article... any coles notes?
It's a rinse, wash, repeat of the same tired rhetoric and talking points that Fehr and the NHLPA have stuck to. No real need to read it.

"This offer is better but still nowhere close, players took a substantial hit last time around, no reason for the players to take another hit but we'll still do it for the good of the game, owners are taking but not offering us anything in return, gimme gimme gimme..."

I started off pro-PA when this all started, but I'm fed up with their entitled stance.

Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:47 AM
  #772
KingSalamon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
Well after seeing some of the players reactions to the offer, it will definitely do one thing to the PA, cause internal friction. Some of the guys really want to play and now that they are getting their salaries and a 'fair' 50/50 split some of them are happy... cautiously happy but happy nonetheless.

There are still going to be others who are standing on some sort of principle and would rather wear a suit than a hockey uniform (yes you Ron Hainsey!) and will likely say this is a terrible offer and want to drag this on and sacrifice the season for their principles.

Hopefully, this creates a divide in the 750 players to the point where there are more pro-Nov 2 as a start date than there are more pro Oct 2013 as a start date.

KingSalamon is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:13 PM
  #773
Back in the Bigs
and lovin' it !!
 
Back in the Bigs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
Yep, my initial reaction was that surely the players would see the sense in agreeing to something close to what was offered by the NHL, realizing that it ain't going to get much better....
but, Fehr's no doubt trying to convince the players that this concession by the owners means that they're cracking internally and 'we've got them where we want them', so let's push it hard....
... LOVE to see what % of players would say "Yes!" to this offer as it stands right now if it went to a secret ballot today
...but that isn't going to happen, so I guess we'll have to wait and see how ridiculous the counter offer is going to be......
...

Back in the Bigs is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:24 PM
  #774
Savardian Spinarama
Grippin' 'n Grinnin'
 
Savardian Spinarama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 129
vCash: 500
I've been on the receiving end of these sorts of union negotiation proposals: "well, it's not very good, in fact it's pretty crappy, but do you want to sign it anyway?". Fehr obviously won't put it to them this way - in fact it looks like he will crap all over it. It's a matter of degrees obviously (I don't make a million dollars a year - very far from it), but the players are going to have to decide whether their "principles", outweigh their economic imperatives. As a member of a union I've had to make that decision as well. Some players will say, "I can live with this", some will not be so willing. Put it to a vote and see where the chips fall, is what I say. I doubt the league is willing to negotiate too far off this latest proposal.

The thing that worries me is if Fehr really sees this as a watershed, history making moment. The opportunity to be THE GUY, who forced two leagues into crossroads moments. I wonder what Ted Lindsay thinks...... .

Savardian Spinarama is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:53 PM
  #775
Hank Chinaski
Mod Supervisor
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savardian Spinarama View Post
I've been on the receiving end of these sorts of union negotiation proposals: "well, it's not very good, in fact it's pretty crappy, but do you want to sign it anyway?". Fehr obviously won't put it to them this way - in fact it looks like he will crap all over it. It's a matter of degrees obviously (I don't make a million dollars a year - very far from it), but the players are going to have to decide whether their "principles", outweigh their economic imperatives. As a member of a union I've had to make that decision as well. Some players will say, "I can live with this", some will not be so willing. Put it to a vote and see where the chips fall, is what I say. I doubt the league is willing to negotiate too far off this latest proposal.
The bolded appears to be where it's headed. It'll be interesting to see how many players have actually bought into the Fehr bill of goods, versus just towing the party line.

Hank Chinaski is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:17 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.